Try to incorporate more facts in your story- Like this SOS opinion I furnished you last week - Not what i call a loophole. More like an established principle in Texas law!!!!

The definition of residence for the purpose of voter registration is well settled in Texas. As stated in the seminal case of Mills v. Bartlett, 377 S.W.2d 636, 637 (Tex.1964), “[n]either bodily presence alone nor intention alone will suffice to create the residence, but when the two coincide at that moment the residence is fixed and determined. There is no specific length of time for the bodily presence to continue.”

http://sites.google.com/a/countycitizens.com/fraud/ducuments/SOS-Voters-gsc1.pdf

p.s. by the way Our Montgomery County DA gave me the above opinion to begin with.

I think the work these men are doing is a service to all taxpayers. We're paying too many taxes (some like these, we don't even know about) and have little say in the way OUR MONEY is being spent. It's sad that more people don't care (it was obvious in Saturday's election).

Mike Page and the rest of the incumbents that have been shown the door are being hypocrites. The district owes it's very existence to this very same mechanism. The developer merely put a couple of construction trailers on some lots in the gerrymandered district, had a couple of people on the developer's payroll use them as their official residence for voting purposes and then had them vote the district into existence. How is that at all different from what McDuffie, Goeddertz, and Bernsten did?

Pot, meet kettle.

This is ridiculous. A hotel for a couple of nights is not a residency within the spirit of the law.

Let's look at a more recent opinion than Mills in 1964. Coury v. Prot, 85 F.3d 244 (5th Cir. 1996) cites some examples of how to determine residence beyond the "intent and presence" standard (using that definition I could say I live at Denny's because I decide to stay in the booth after my meal).

What's important is where a person exercises civil and political rights, owns real and personal property, has driver’s and other licenses, pays taxes, maintains bank accounts, belongs to clubs and churches, has places of business or employment, and maintains a home for his family. Ten of those so-called voters may find those standards a bit too high and they may well find themselves adjudicated as felons for claiming a hotel as their residence when their drivers license, bank records, tax records, etc show a difference residence than the one they used to get into this election. Why do these people want control of the WRUD?

There are millions at stake here -- tax dollars paid by businesses to improve roads in The Woodlands without taxing the residents. In essence, the people of The Woodlands got the benefits and the business owners picked up the tab. Ask those willing to commit election fraud what they stand to gain. Those answers are likely to be fascinating.